The above is a link to a Washington Post column by Christine Emba explaining why Confederate monuments need to be taken down and debunking the arguments which attempt to justify keeping the Confederate monuments.

The Washington Post is the press agency of the centrist Democrats. Up until 2015 they have been somewhat nothing on opposing neo-Confederacy and not particularly vigorous about opposing neo-Confederacy since.

This was written by Kirk Savage, a court historian, and it will be forever attached to his name.

I am somewhat puzzled by the Washington Post running this column. Did they not see the contradiction with Savage's column? Or do they think no one will remember?

Now with the neo-liberals arguing the Confederate monuments will have to go Democrats will start supporting their removal.

For all the public historians rationalizing keeping Confederate monuments, suddenly they find the establishment is no longer supporting these ideas. They are in an embarrassing position of having supported what they thought was the mainstream establishment view, but now have a record of having supported what is considered a reactionary view.

These historians might consider cutting their losses, not just by stop thinking of some rationalization of some plan to keep a Confederate monument, but review what other institutions they support which shortly or in a few years might also lose establishment support. They run the risk of being referred to as the old guard or some other label which discredits them.